do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-283/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (TALIS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark TALIS — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, condiment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022340EN.01003501.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/35






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (TALIS)
(Case T-283/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark TALIS - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 340/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia) (represented by: J. Sibinčič, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Edvin Pejovič, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 888/2020-4) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 888/2020-4);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Edvin Pejovič for the purposes of the present proceedings and for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;










4.


Orders ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Case T-287/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (SALATINA) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SALATINA — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, condiment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022340EN.01003701.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/37






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (SALATINA)
(Case T-287/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SALATINA - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 340/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia) (represented by: J. Sibinčič, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Edvin Pejovič, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 889/2020-4) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 889/2020-4);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Edvin Pejovič for the purposes of the present proceedings and for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;










4.


Orders ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Case T-641/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — dennree v EUIPO (BioMarkt) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark BioMarkt — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) du of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural product, catering industry, clothing, cosmetic product, foodstuff, non-alcoholic beverage, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022359EN.01007002.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/70






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — dennree v EUIPO (BioMarkt)
(Case T-641/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark BioMarkt - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) du of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 359/86)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: dennree GmbH (Töpen, Germany) (represented by: K. Röttgen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) du 9 August 2021 (Case R 783/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders dennree GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Case T-629/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Delifruit v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance chlorpyrifos — Determination of maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos in or on bananas — Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 — Scientific and technical knowledge available — Other legitimate factors)
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: food inspection, food safety, insecticide, pesticide residue, tropical fruit








C_2022359EN.01006401.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/64






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Delifruit v Commission
(Case T-629/20) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance chlorpyrifos - Determination of maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos in or on bananas - Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 - Scientific and technical knowledge available - Other legitimate factors)
(2022/C 359/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Delifruit, SA (Guayaquil, Ecuador) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, P. Sellar and S. Abdel-Qader, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, A. Dawes and M. ter Haar, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Delifruit, SA, seeks the partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085 of 23 July 2020 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl in or on certain products (OJ 2020 L 239, p. 7, corrigendum OJ 2020 L 245, p. 31) (‘the contested regulation’), in so far as it sets the maximum residue level (‘MRL’) for chlorpyrifos in or on bananas at 0.01 mg/kg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Delifruit, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Case C-468/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsialisiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 July 2022 — Criminal proceedings against VB
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to the courts, criminal procedure, criminal proceedings, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, legal hearing, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022408EN.01003301.xml










24.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/33






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsialisiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 July 2022 — Criminal proceedings against VB
(Case C-468/22)
(2022/C 408/43)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsialisiran nakazatelen sad

Accused person

VB

Question referred

Is it compatible with Article 9 of Directive 2016/343 (1) and the principle of effectiveness for a national provision such as Article 423(3) of the NPK to oblige a person who makes a request for a new trial, because he or she had been absent from the first trial and neither of the cases in Article 8(2) [of that directive] applied, to appear before the court in person in order to have that request examined on the merits?


(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).
Case T-286/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (RENŠKI HRAM) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark RENŠKI HRAM — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, condiment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022340EN.01003601.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/36






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (RENŠKI HRAM)
(Case T-286/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark RENŠKI HRAM - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 340/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia) (represented by: J. Sibinčič, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Edvin Pejovič, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 679/2020-4) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 679/2020-4);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Edvin Pejovič for the purposes of the present proceedings and for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;










4.


Orders ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Case T-284/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (RENČKI HRAM) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark RENČKI HRAM — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, condiment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022340EN.01003502.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/35






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (RENČKI HRAM)
(Case T-284/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark RENČKI HRAM - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 340/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia) (represented by: J. Sibinčič, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Edvin Pejovič, seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 1050/2020-4) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 March 2021 (Case R 1050/2020-4);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Edvin Pejovič for the purposes of the present proceedings and for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;










4.


Orders ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Case T-886/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Design Light & Led Made in Europe and Design Luce & Led Made in Italy v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — LED lighting sector — Patent Licensing Program — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons — No EU interest — Probability of being able to establish the existence of an infringement)
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, complaint to the Commission, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, lighting, patents licence, price agreement








C_2022340EN.01002801.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/28






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Design Light & Led Made in Europe and Design Luce & Led Made in Italy v Commission
(Case T-886/19) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - LED lighting sector - Patent Licensing Program - Decision rejecting a complaint - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons - No EU interest - Probability of being able to establish the existence of an infringement)
(2022/C 340/36)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Design Light & Led Made in Europe (Milan, Italy) and Design Luce & Led Made in Italy (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Maresca, D. Maresca and S. Pelleriti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Ernst, C. Sjödin and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Signify Holding BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Snelders, R. Lepetska and N. Van Belle, lawyers)

Re:

By their action based under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 7805 final of 25 October 2019 rejecting their complaint concerning infringements of Articles 101 or 102 TFEU allegedly committed by Koninklijke Philips NV (Case AT.39913 — LED).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Design Light & Led Made in Europe and Design Luce & Led Made in Italy to pay the costs;










3.


Orders Signify Holding BV to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.